Orphaning homestead

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:58:23 +0000
"Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 11:01:20AM -0600, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> > 
> > > Jon Ciesla wrote:
> > >> Instead of orphaning and doing a new review, couldn't it simply
> > >> be renamed, and use a versioned Obsoletes?  Is it really just a
> > >> new name, and
> > >> otherwise drop-in compatible?
> > >
> > >
> > > Current policy-ish stuff says that it must go through a new
> > > package review, for lack of a more streamlined process yet. See
> > > last week's FESCo meeting notes for gory details...
> > 
> > My bad.  So it does need the new review, but not orphaning of the
> > old package?

It needs a new review of the new package, and the old package needs to
follow:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/PackageEndOfLife 
once the new package is approved and in. 

Thats the current policy. 

> Wasn't there a new policy discussed at FPC or Fesco about this
> recently?  So renamed packages could just be renamed without going
> through a complete review?

I proposed an alternate method that would allow just checking
Obsoletes/Provides on the new package before allowing it to be created. 
This proposal was not accepted by FESCo. 

So, for now at least, treat the new name as a new package. 

> Rich.

kevin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20090211/cd1473f1/attachment.sig>